Mega death? Rock stardom reduces life expectancy

North American solo artists have it especially bad.

Hedonism. Substance abuse. Risky behavior. Rock stars from Elvis Presley to Amy Winehouse have ended up famous not only for their music but for the decadent lifestyle it enabled, one that eventually contributed to their deaths. But how much does the rock lifestyle really hurt?

Quite a bit. That's the conclusion of a new study that tracked nearly 1,500 chart-topping musicians and found that their life expectancy after fame really was lower than that of the general population. North American solo musicians seem to have it especially bad.

This wasn't necessarily what you'd expect. A huge number of studies have shown that wealth is generally associated with greater longevity, possibly as a result of better health care, better diet, and lower stress. Not only are rock musicians dying faster than the general populace, but they're completely negating the impact of any wealth that their fame brought to them.

To get a collection of rock stars for their study, the authors combed the charts and took advantage of a large poll that listed the top 1,000 albums of all time. Altogether, their subjects reached fame between the years of 1956 and 2006 and included everyone from Elvis Presley to Regina Spektor to the Arctic Monkeys. From there, the authors searched the news and Wikipedia, looking for reports of death. With that information in hand, they compared the artists' life expectancies to those of the general population.

With the exception of some elderly Europeans, rock stardom is not kind to most.

Only about two-thirds of North American stars were still alive 40 years after their first brush with fame, compared with about 80 percent of a matched population—and there was never a point at which they outlived their non-famous peers. Typically, Europeans have greater life expectancies, but European stars did not, tracking the longevity of average North Americans for the first few decades.

Oddly, however, once they survived 20 years after hitting the big time, European rock stars started to do better, outliving the typical North American. And, by 35 years, they caught up with the average European's life expectancy. (No word from the authors on whether this trend would stay the same if the analysis excluded the members of the Rolling Stones.) On both continents, solo performers did worse than members of a band.

So what's killing the famous? The authors identified cause of death wherever possible and classified it as either "other" or "substance use or risk-related deaths." The latter category included "drug or alcohol-related chronic disorder, overdose or accident, and other risk-related causes that may or may not have been related to substance use, i.e., suicide and violence." They also tried to determine (using biographical data) whether any of the deceased stars had suffered adverse childhood experiences, such as a substance abusing or a mentally ill parent.

Of those without any obvious childhood issues, under a third died of substance abuse or other risky behavior. Adding a single adverse childhood influence raised that rate to 42 percent. Two or more adverse events, and the rate shot up to about 80 percent.

These same sorts of childhood problems tend to lead to substance abuse and other troubles in the general population as well, and the authors conclude that the hedonism we associate with rock stars is less a lifestyle choice and more an outcome of early life issues.

The study has a few weaknesses, many of which the authors recognize in their discussion. The population of dead artists is small, and they're only just now reaching the point where they're likely to die of old age. In addition, the authors haven't been able to track the rates of substance abuse and childhood difficulties in the population of surviving musicians—many of these things only tend to be documented in obituaries. Still, the authors make a pretty compelling case that some rock star habits are less a matter of living things up and more a case of reliving childhood problems.

Well as they said some of the career ending underlying causes tend to come out in obituaries, so with more funding they could investigate deeper to be more conclusive. Also this could be a perfect study of the effects of wealth and longevity under particular social-economic systems like socialism vs capitalism.

America, all you had to do was keep Elliott Smith and Jeff Buckley alive until I made a million bucks and could hire those guys for my awesome wedding reception. My Norwegian model wife would have been so proud.

Rockstars may pay a price for all that awesome hedonism, but as Christopher Hitchens said not long before he died, "I burned the candle at both ends and it often gave a lovely light."

In the end it's not the quantity of life that's important but the quality. I would much rather actually LIVE my life and lose a few years in the process than playing it safe and never live at all. My life has been anything but boring so far. I have a few friends who tell me later they wish they had taken me up on my offers to have them join me on this or that adventure. Nothing gained if nothing is risked.

Yeah the reason solo artists die first is cause no one is bogarting that joint my friend!!!

And just to lob it in their. If the Stones and Ozzy keep to a British diet of meat, veg and potatoes rather than the US fast food which probably most US rock stars scoff, they're on a longer road just from that.

These same sorts of childhood problems tend to lead to substance abuse and other troubles in the general population as well, and the authors conclude that the hedonism we associate with rock stars is less a lifestyle choice and more an outcome of early life issues.

Could it be that the early life issues are what inspired them to become famous in the first place? I've noticed that artistic genius often goes hand in hand with bat shit crazy. e.g. Van Gogh, Keith Moon, Brian Wilson, Sid Vicious etc. I'd say it's the angst from the "early life issues" that informs both the substance abuse and the fame.

They need a metric for fun. If the rock star has twice as much fun then they might be seen as having a fuller life even though it is shorter.

Maybe. But if addiction and all that goes along with it are a factor in this result then... I had a close relative die as a consequence of addiction a few years back and I don't remember anything fun about that at all. For anyone.

My thoughts are that as a group the males have a better group reward system for making touring tolerable. It is easy for the relentless pace and way of touring can make people feel trapped and have trauma that are relieved by drugs and alcohol. Touring is a rough job for anyone. Group reward helps. Drugs and alcohol help with the trapped feelings. Depression is common .